NEWS
Paradise lost?
Most people know the Maldives as a tropical paradise for holiday makers. But behind the white beaches and glittering waves is a poor population which has lived in close symbiosis with the sea for hundreds of years - but now has to look elsewhere for a place to live, as the ocean is steadily eating away at their islands.
Michael von Bülow 20/03/2009 12:40
When the tsunami hit the archipelago of the Maldives in 2004, it was more in the way of a flooding than a regular tidal wave due to the sharp profile of the atolls. Only 87 people perished, but the damages were catastrophic for the tiny island state.
Two thirds of the country disappeared momentarily into the Indian Ocean, and when the sea withdrew, it took 62 percent of the country’s GNP with it. Electricity, communications and freshwater supplies on many islands were destroyed by the saltwater, and not until two years later was the country brought back on foot with the aid of the UN and international aid organisations.
Perhaps it was only a taste of what the 300,000 citizens of the Maldives can expect if and when global warming kicks in and makes the world’s seas rise by as much as one meter within the next century, like the latest scientific studies forecast.
80 percent of the island state’s only 235 km2 are less than one meter above sea level, so disaster is looming. Erosion is constantly eating away at the vulnerable atolls, and climate change is already palpable in the shape of more rain and more disease-carrying mosquitoes.
To most foreigners the Maldives are just a paradise for holiday makers. White beaches as if taken straight from a postcard and a temperature that due to cooling breezes from the sea never becomes unbearably high, making the country a rare pearl made for sailing, surfing, diving or just lazing on the beach. Under the sea, hobby divers encounter a world of adventures with corals and a thousand different tropical fish species.
Almost 700.000 tourists from mainly Europe, Japan, China and Australia visit the Maldives each year. Upon landing in one of the two international airports, one immediately notices the proximity of the sea. It feels literally like landing on the water because the islands are so tiny – a jogger can easily cover the perimeter of the main island Male’ in less than half an hour. The runways are regularly wet with splashes of sea water, in spite of the fact that the airport island Hulhumale has been raised artificially to the breath-taking elevation of two meters above sea level.
With a share of 35-40 percent of the GNP, tourism is a vital source of income for the Maldives. The second largest source of income is tuna fishing, which is done with hook and line in the traditional, environmentally friendly way, but which is declining rapidly due to dwindling fish stock. Apart from that, there is some farming, consisting mostly of coconuts and papaya.
Historically, the Maldives have for hundreds of years been a crossroads for different trade routes, and this is reflected in the population which ethnically and culturally is a unique amalgamation of Indians, Africans and Arabs. In addition to that, the island state has its own written language.
But the citizens in the 100 percent Muslim country are poor, and with a national economy the size of a small European city the Maldives are totally dependant upon foreign aid and loans if the tropical paradise is to be saved from slipping away into the expansive ocean.
Who will provide the necessary hundreds of millions of dollars, and is it worth the trouble in the first place? Couldn’t the tourists just go somewhere else for their holidays and the Maldivian population move some place where the risk of getting their feet wet is less imminent?
“It is a tiny nation, and by then (2100, ed. note) the population will perhaps be half a million people who could theoretically be displaced. But can we accept the disappearance of a country and an absolutely unique culture? That is the question we need to ask ourselves,” says Jonas Kjær.
Following the tsunami, from spring 2005 till late 2007 the Dane was stationed in the Maldives by the UNDP as aid coordination advisor, aiding the Maldivian government with the economic rehabilitation. There is no doubt in his mind as to the answer.
“No, we can not accept that a country just disappears,” he says.
According to Jonas Kjær, the recipe for saving the Maldives is “population and development consolidation”. The first step would be to gather the population of the Maldives, which at the moment is scattered over 200 islands, on just 10 to 15 islands. This would at the same time make an additional number of islands available to tourists, thereby making them co-finance the relocation and rehabilitation of the local population.
The next step would be to elevate the islands artificially by two to three meters, and to build solid walls along the coast safeguarding the islands against the tide and storms.
“Of course, there are some social, cultural and historical considerations to be made. You don’t just move a population that has inhabited the islands for maybe 2,000 years. That takes political guts,” says Jonas Kjær.
In fact, population and development consolidation, nicknamed “pop concert”, has been sitting in a drawer with the previous government for at least 10 years. Due to political reluctance and fear of the population’s reaction the programme hasn’t been initiated. There seems, however, to be a growing understanding amongst the population for a need to do something – an understanding that has been augmented substantially by the impact of the tsunami.
The younger and more informed citizens have especially acknowledged the need to move, and some are already on their way. More and more young Maldivians go to Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Singapore, the US or the UK to study, and after finishing their studies some of them decide to stay in their new country, adding to the brain drain of their native country.
This leaves a Maldivian population, which after 30 years of semi-dictatorial rule has embarked on a positive democratic development, to hope that paradise has not already been lost.
| Read more |
Carbon
0 0 votes
Senators say U.S. climate bill making progress
by Reuters News on 13 October 2009, 23:56 PM 0 comments , 11 views
Categories: Reuters News
* Senator Boxer says bill likely to advance in November
* Senator Kerry sees "breakthrough" with Graham support
* Many doubt law will emerge before Copenhagen summit
By Richard Cowan
WASHINGTON, Oct 13 (Reuters) - Democratic U.S. senators pushing legislation on global warming said on Tuesday they were making progress in winning support for the controversial measure, which is expected to begin moving through a key Senate committee sometime in November.
"We will make our best effort and we will advance this ball and Copenhagen will know we're not fooling around," Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry told Reuters in an interview.
In early December, an international meeting convenes in Copenhagen to try to reach an agreement on the next steps for reducing greenhouse gas pollution that is blamed for global climate change.
As the leading carbon dioxide polluter in the developed world, the United States is seen as key to the success of the Copenhagen meeting, where developing countries will want to see that Washington is making progress toward controlling dangerous emissions.
On Sunday, The New York Times published a column by Kerry, a Democrat, and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican. The senators vowed to band together to work toward passage of a comprehensive climate change and energy bill.
"I think it's a breakthrough," Kerry told Reuters, referring to Graham's cooperation in the drive to gain enough votes for Senate passage.
Nevertheless, many are skeptical the Senate can pass legislation this year in the run-up to the Copenhagen summit.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer announced her panel will kick off three days of hearings on Oct. 27 on the climate change bill that she and Kerry proposed.
That measure calls for cutting carbon emissions 20 percent by 2020, from 2005 levels, a slightly more aggressive goal than a bill passed by the House of Representatives but far less ambitious than European countries have set forth.
TIMELINE
Boxer said she hoped, in the weeks following the hearings, her committee will finish work on changes to the bill and will vote to approve it. But several other committees also must sign off on the bill.
The California Democrat said "great progress" had been made in refining the legislation, which is now being analyzed by the Environmental Protection Agency. But she stopped short of predicting passage by the full Senate this year.
"We look forward to a strong, clean energy jobs bill (being sent) to the full Senate as soon as possible," Boxer told a news conference.
As she has repeated numerous times in recent months, Boxer said refinements to the bill -- such as how many free pollution permits U.S. industries would get -- would follow the outline of the House-passed bill, with some "tweaks."
But she refused to provide details on how these "allocations" have been worked out in her bill.
Boxer said intensive discussions have been held with the Senate's coal-state interests, who have a lot at stake in legislation that aims to wean the United States off polluting fossil fuels used at many utility plants.
Kerry's discussions with Graham and other senators have focused on encouraging growth in the U.S. nuclear power industry. He said the Obama administration is "open" to such moves in a climate bill.
They also are discussing more U.S. offshore oil and gas drilling.
Liberal Democrats in Congress likely will balk at using government aid to encourage building more nuclear power plants, as well as expanding offshore oil drilling. But those might be necessary ingredients to lure some Republicans, who now largely oppose climate-change legislation. (Editing by John O'Callaghan) ((richard.cowan@thomsonreuters.com; +1 202-898-8391; Reuters Messaging; richard.cowan.reuters.com@reuters.net)) Keywords: CLIMATE USA/CONGRESS
Carbon
0 0 votes
Q+A: Why should we care about a new climate agreement?
by Reuters News on 14 October 2009, 04:07 AM 0 comments , 1 views
Categories: Reuters News
For Reuters global climate change coverage [ID:nCLIMATE]
Oct 14 - The global economy is still is bad shape, people are worried about their jobs and just paying the bills is a major challenge, hardly the right environment to get people focusing on climate change.
With so much to worry about, it can be hard to understand all the fuss about reaching a tougher U.N. climate deal in December in the Danish capital Copenhagen.
Following are some questions and answers on the importance of crafting a new agreement from 2013.
WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO ME?
A new deal will change the way energy is used, priced and created. In short, it will change the global economy.
Scientists say rich nations must find ways to make deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from power stations and steel mills to refineries and transport to prevent dangerous climate change.
For you and me, this will most likely mean higher fuel and electricity bills, while catching a plane will also become more expensive, as will buying imported food and drink. Insurance premiums covering storm damage or other natural disasters are also likely to rise.
In short, we'll be forced to make tougher lifestyle choices.
The flip side is that governments will help make renewable energy and greener transport more attractive, allowing people to make the switch to cleaner alternatives. Wind farms, solar, plus geothermal, wave and tidal power along with hybrid and fuel cell cars should become more commonplace as costs come down.
Financing from rich nations could also drive a green revolution in developing countries, boosting investment, creating jobs and cutting emissions.
HOW WILL THIS WORK?
It all hinges on putting a price on every tonne of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, produced by industry, transport or through deforestation, or saved from being emitted, such as building wind farms or saving tropical forests that soak up CO2.
Emissions trading through cap-and-trade schemes that give industries incentives to clean up will also be essential. Europe already has such a scheme, while Australia and the United States are working on their own versions.
Key to these schemes are tougher 2020 emissions reduction targets under a new climate treaty. The tougher the targets, the greater the financial incentive for industries to act.
WHAT'S THE URGENCY? CAN'T WE WAIT?
The world has already warmed on average 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past century through the burning of fossil fuels, such as oil, coal and gas. Prior to the latest financial crisis, emissions growth was increasing annually at a rate beyond past projections, driven largely by soaring coal and oil consumption in big developing nations, such as China and India.
Scientists say that the world is on course to pump enough carbon dioxide into the air to raise global temperatures by at least 2 deg C in the next few decades, a level they say will lead to more chaotic weather, rising seas, melting glaciers, water shortages and falling crop yields.
Such disruption poses major security threats because the world's population is expected to keep rising. Pollution and health problems are also growing risks.
Even if you don't believe in climate change, the world has only about 41 years of oil left based on proven reserves and 2008 consumption levels of nearly 31 billion barrels a year. As reserves fall and oil becomes harder to extract, prices of crude will continue to rise, making greener energy more attractive.
WHAT CAN JUST ONE PERSON DO?
A lot. Switch to compact fluorescent lighting in the home and office, use public transport, buy locally produced food and recycle your rubbish. Take re-usesable bags when shopping and switch off unused appliances at home.
Every little bit helps because it entrenches behaviour and gets people talking.
(Writing by David Fogarty; Editing by Nick Macfie)
((david.fogarty@thomsonreuters.com; +65 6403 5662; Reuters Messaging: david.fogarty.reuters.com@reuters.net)) ((If you have a query or comment on this story, send an email to news.feedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com)) Keywords: CLIMATE PACT/MEANING
Carbon
0 0 votes
FACTBOX-Cracking the Copenhagen climate code
by Reuters News on 14 October 2009, 04:22 AM 0 comments , 1 views
Categories: Reuters News
For Reuters global climate change coverage click [ID:nCLIMATE] and for a Q+A on the impact of a proposed pact click [ID:nSP328700]
Oct 14 - The text of an emerging new U.N. climate agreement is filled with words and phrases in brackets, obscure references to other U.N. climate treaties and mind-boggling acronyms that look like a secret code.
Except that you won't find AOSIS in a desert, MRV isn't something you can drive, minding your NAMAs has nothing to do with being polite and you can't have a BAP for breakfast.
Following are some of the acronyms in the negotiating text that cover key areas or groups that will be central to major U.N. climate talks in Copenhagen in December.
AOSIS - Alliance of Small Island States. Groups 42 members and observers from wealthy nations such as Singapore to poorer island nations vulnerable to rising seas, changing rainfall patterns and more intense storms. Has been very active in pushing for funding to help adapt to climate change impacts.
BAP -- Bali Action Plan. Nations agreed at U.N. climate talks in Bali at the end of 2007 to launch two years of negotiations to try to reach a broader climate deal that commits all nations, particularly the United States and big developing countries, to curb the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.
COP - Conference of the parties. The supreme body of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Kyoto Protocol comes under the convention. A MOP is a meeting of the parties.
LULUCF - Land use, land use change and forestry. Covers ways to offset or soak up carbon emissions through planting forests, stopping forests from being chopped down, to changes in agricultural practices that promote carbon being locked away in the soil. Controversial because it can sometimes be hard to calculate how much carbon is locked away or the emissions produced from such activities. Emissions might also be accidentally released if the "carbon sink" catches fire or is destroyed by disease.
MRV -- Measureable, reportable and verifiable. Negotiators are trying to agree on ways every nation's emissions reduction steps can be regularly reported to the U.N. and independently checked to see if these steps really do cut emissions. Controversial because developing nations fear their efforts will be treated the same way as rich countries', even though wealthy nations are supposed to recognise they have a historical responsibility to commit to binding and deep cuts. Poorer nations also don't want to be held internationally accountable for voluntary cuts.
NAMAs - Nationally appropriate mitigation actions: Steps by developing countries to curb the growth of their emissions. These are not linked to binding emissions targets but can be programmes such as promoting greater use of solar or wind power, replanting and conserving forests or greater energy efficiency across industrial sectors.
QELROs - Quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives. Binding economy-wide steps by rich nations to cut emissions.
REDD - Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation. A U.N.-backed scheme that looks to reward developing nations for preserving and protecting forests via the use of an expanded carbon market. Efforts to conserve and improve forest stocks might also be included.
(Writing by David Fogarty and Alister Doyle; Editing by Sanjeev Miglani) ((david.fogarty@thomsonreuters.com; +65 6403 5662; Reuters Messaging: david.fogarty.reuters.com@reuters.net)) ((If you have a query or comment on this story, send an email to news.feedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com))
Keywords: CLIMATE LANGUAGE
JPMorgan to buy EcoSecurities for $204 million (14 Sept 2009)
LONDON (Reuters) - JPMorgan Chase & Co agreed to buy carbon offset aggregator EcoSecurities for 122.9 million pounds ($204 million) on Monday, trumping a bid from the firm's co-founder, to boost its carbon-credit trading business.
J.P.Morgan Ventures Energy Corp., a subsidiary of the bank, said its 100 pence-a-share bid, made through Carbon Acquisition Company, had the backing of shareholders representing 19.9 percent of the company.
It said EcoSecurities had successfully realized value from sourcing, developing and trading emission reductions, and it noted the firm had recorded its first period of profitability in the first half.
The offer represents a 120 percent premium to the group's share price before the start of the offer period on June 4.
"It looks like JPMorgan is backing the current management to take the business private," said Ken Rumph, an equity analyst at Nomura Code.
Ireland-based EcoSecurities Group Plc develops clean energy projects under the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism, which allows companies to export cuts in greenhouse gas emissions to emerging countries like China and India, where such reductions are cheaper to make.
EcoSecurities shares were up 11.5 percent at 101.5 pence by 1411 GMT (10:11 a.m. EDT).
Carbon Acquisition Company said the acceptances included 13.6 million shares held by current and former directors and 9.9 million shares owned by Credit Suisse.
In the offer statement, Carbon Acquisition said the acceptances would remain binding in the event of a competing offer being made.
"It's a scorched earth, blocking tactic (and) it's a problem for Guanabara if these blocking minority figures are holding out," Rumph added.
EcoSecurities rebuffed on September 1 a revised 90 pence-a-share offer from Guanabara Holdings, set up by EcoSecurities co-founder and former president Pedro Moura Costa.
The board of Guanabara said Monday afternoon it noted Carbon Acquisition's offer and will make a further announcement following a review of its own position.
"It remains to be seen if Guanabara will improve its offer and bid something closer to our 'bare-bones' valuation of 114 pence per share," said Mirabaud's Agustin Hochschild.
In July, Guanabara reached a deal with then rival bidder EDF Trading, a unit of French utility EDF, offering it the option to purchase a portion of EcoSecurities' pre-2012 offset portfolio if Guanabara's bid was successful.
($1=.6027 Pound)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar